Author
Listed:
- Coker, A.L.
- Flerx, V.C.
- Smith, P.H.
- Whitaker, D.J.
- Fadden, M.K.
- Williams, M.
Abstract
Objectives. We sought to determine the frequency of intimate partner violence by type in a large, clinic-based, nurse-administered screening and services intervention project. Methods. A brief intimate partner violence screen, which included items to measure sexual and physical assaults and psychological battering (using the Women's Experience With Battering scale) was administered to consenting women receiving care at 1 of 8 rural clinics in South Carolina. Results. Between April 2002 and August 2005, 4945 eligible women were offered intimate partner violence screening, to which 3664 (74.1%) consented. Prevalence of intimate partner violence in a current (ongoing) relationship was 13.3%, and 939 women (25.6%) had experienced intimate partner violence at some point in the past 5 years. Of those ever experiencing intimate partner violence, the majority (65.6%) experienced both assaults and psychological battering; 10.1% experienced assault only, and 24.3% experienced psychological battering only. Most women (85.5%) currently experiencing both psychological battering and assaults stated that violence was a problem in their current relationship. Conclusions. The intimate partner violence screening technique we used was feasible to implement, acceptable to women seeking health care at the targeted clinics, and indicated a high proportion of women reporting intimate partner violence in the past 5 years, with a majority of those women stating that such violence was a problem in their relationships. These findings demonstrated the viability of the screening technique, which supports the growing importance of implementing intimate partner violence screenings in clinical settings in order to reduce the prevalence of violence in intimate relationships.
Suggested Citation
Coker, A.L. & Flerx, V.C. & Smith, P.H. & Whitaker, D.J. & Fadden, M.K. & Williams, M., 2007.
"Partner violence screening in rural health care clinics,"
American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 97(7), pages 1319-1325.
Handle:
RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2005.085357_8
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.085357
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2005.085357_8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.